Notes: Growing in a mediterranean habitat, dominated by Quercus trees.
Four specimens, three together and the youngest some centimeters apart.
It is curious to observe that my camera reproduced some very light tan coloration for the caps, whereas I saw grey everywhere. The same phenomenum occured with the interior part of the volva.
I find the specimens of this observation very similar to those in observation 185697 from last year, at a different place though with similar habitat, but this time maybe due to youth none of the specimens had developed horizontal cracks leading to the break of stem tissues like those in that previous observation.
I’m experiencing some problems with my microscope that don´t allow me to observe (at least) the spores, and I will do it as soon as possible, but I’m quite confident about the above mentioned similarity.

I am taking a little break to bring the website up to date with recent collections and to update some of our regional checklists for North America that have gotten behind the current level of knowledge.

Dear Rod,
Today I put in the mail office the material of this observation: Specimens 3 and 4, mentioned in my last message. I took the opportunity to send also some material from observation 222884 (this year version of those in _observation 181564 _, that I sent you last year). Please see that observation for the description of the material sent.
Best regards,
zaca

I also came to that conclusion.
But then the conclusion is that this is not A. argentea, but another taxon in the same section, for which I have no clue. I looked to my former observations of specimens in this section and nothing similar appeared.
Best regards,
zaca

Miscalibration should effect length and width measurements in the same way. The ratio of average length to average width should be unchanged by a miscalibration. If the width is multiplied by 1.2, then (in the case of miscalibration) the length would be multiplied by the same amount. But that is not what happened. Again, look at the fact that my range of Q is distinctly different from your range of Q. (The range of Q is associated with the lines in the sporograph that are not vertical or horizontal.) Because our ranges of length are somewhat similar, the difference in ranges of width cause the Q values for your material to be lower than mine. The Q ratio is a very powerful tool to use in addition to the length and the width of spores. Also, please note that one of the hexagons from my data represents my spore measurements from type material.

Thanks for your comment and sporograph.
I will analyze it in more detail one of these days, but it is clear that it seems there is a shift (to the right) in relation to your records of A. argentea. Looking for possible reasons, it came to my mind that my recent problems with the scope end up with a bad calibration of it and this will be my first step to check. Unless, you have a better idea and can say something more clarifying.
Best regards,
zaca